Transcriptional Response of Zebrafish Embryos Exposed to Neurotoxic Compounds Reveals a Muscle Activity Dependent hspb11 Expression

Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors are widely used as pesticides and drugs. Their primary effect is the overstimulation of cholinergic receptors which results in an improper muscular function. During vertebrate embryonic development nerve activity and intracellular downstream events are critical for the regulation of muscle fiber formation. Whether AChE inhibitors and related neurotoxic compounds also provoke specific changes in gene transcription patterns during vertebrate development that allow them to establish a mechanistic link useful for identification of developmental toxicity pathways has, however, yet not been investigated. Therefore we examined the transcriptomic response of a known AChE inhibitor, the organophosphate azinphos-methyl (APM), in zebrafish embryos and compared the response with two non-AChE inhibiting unspecific control compounds, 1,4-dimethoxybenzene (DMB) and 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP). A highly specific cluster of APM induced gene transcripts was identified and a subset of strongly regulated genes was analyzed in more detail. The small heat shock protein hspb11 was found to be the most sensitive induced gene in response to AChE inhibitors. Comparison of expression in wildtype, ache and sopfixe mutant embryos revealed that hspb11 expression was dependent on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) activity. Furthermore, modulators of intracellular calcium levels within the whole embryo led to a transcriptional up-regulation of hspb11 which suggests that elevated intracellular calcium levels may regulate the expression of this gene. During early zebrafish development, hspb11 was specifically expressed in muscle pioneer cells and Hspb11 morpholino-knockdown resulted in effects on slow muscle myosin organization. Our findings imply that a comparative toxicogenomic approach and functional analysis can lead to the identification of molecular mechanisms and specific marker genes for potential neurotoxic compounds

Comparative floral structure and systematics in Chrysobalanaceae s.l. (Chrysobalanaceae, Dichapetalaceae, Euphroniaceae, Trigonaiceae; Malpighiales)

Chrysobalanaceae s.l., one of the few suprafamilial subclades of Malpighiales that is supported by molecular phylogenetic analyses, and containing Chrysobalanaceae, Dichapetalaceae, Euphroniaceae, and Trigoniaceae, was comparatively studied with regard to floral structure. The subclade is well supported by floral structure. Potential synapomorphies for Chrysobalanaceae s.l. are the following shared features: floral cup; flowers obliquely monosymmetric; sepals congenitally united at base; sepals of unequal size (outer two shorter); fertile stamens concentrated on the anterior side of the flower and sometimes united into a strap; staminodes absent in the posteriormost antepetalous position; anthers extremely introrse, with thecae almost in one plane; endothecium continuous over the dorsal side of the connective; dorsal anther pit; gynoecium completely syncarpous up to the stigma; carpel flanks slightly bulged out transversely and thus carpels demarcated from each other by a longitudinal furrow; flowers with dense unicellular, non-lignified hairs, especially on the gynoecium; light-coloured, dense indumentum on young shoots and inflorescences. Potential synapomorphies for Chrysobalanaceae + Euphroniaceae include: spur in floral cup; clawed petals; lignified hairs on petals; nectary without lobes or scales and mostly annular. Potential synapomorphies for Dichapetalaceae + Trigoniaceae include: special mucilage cells in sepals in mesophyll (in addition to epidermis); anthers almost basifixed; gynoecium synascidiate up to lower style; nectary with lobes or scales and semi-annular

Chiropractic and CAM Utilization: A Descriptive Review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To conduct a descriptive review of the scientific literature examining use rates of modalities and procedures used by CAM clinicians to manage chronic LBP and other conditions</p> <p>Data Sources</p> <p>A literature of PubMed and MANTIS was performed using the key terms <it>Chiropractic; Low Back Pain; Utilization Rate; Use Rate; Complementary and Alternative Medicine</it>; and <it>Health Services </it>in various combinations.</p> <p>Data Selection</p> <p>A total of 137 papers were selected, based upon including information about chiropractic utilization, CAM utilization and low back pain and other conditions.</p> <p>Data Synthesis</p> <p>Information was extracted from each paper addressing use of chiropractic and CAM, and is summarized in tabular form.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thematic analysis of the paper topics indicated that there were 5 functional areas covered by the literature: back pain papers, general chiropractic papers, insurance-related papers, general CAM-related papers; and worker's compensation papers.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Studies looking at chiropractic utilization demonstrate that the rates vary, but generally fall into a range from around 6% to 12% of the population, most of whom seek chiropractic care for low back pain and not for organic disease or visceral dysfunction. CAM is itself used by people suffering from a variety of conditions, though it is often used not as a primary intervention, but rather as an additional form of care. CAM and chiropractic often offer lower costs for comparable results compared to conventional medicine.</p